The problem is that the link to the speculations about SlimVirgin, seem simply added as an afterthought. Kinda of like spitting in soup right before you serve it. The link really doesn't add anything to the discussion about Google. I think the information could be found in a source that is not spoiled in that way.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:23 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
On 10/11/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
What's your purpose?
Fred
Posting the link to the list? To raise discussion of the issue in meta terms about policy, of course.
The really interesting thing about this Slate piece is that it is very citeable for other subjects - if we want to cover Google's privacy issues, this is probably one good source. Should we not cite this piece because it happens to have one paragraph attacking and/or outing a prominent Wikipedian? Now we aren't even in the realm of attack sites - we're in the realm of whether a webpage which tangentially attacks a Wikipedian but contains good citeable content is one we can link to.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/11/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is that the link to the speculations about SlimVirgin, seem simply added as an afterthought. Kinda of like spitting in soup right before you serve it. The link really doesn't add anything to the discussion about Google. I think the information could be found in a source that is not spoiled in that way.
So let's say that I cite this in an article about Google's privacy issues. What is the correct course of action for another editor?
A. Remove the link without replacing it; B. Remove the link but only after replacing it with an equivalent source; C. Leaving it alone but requesting a better source on the talk;
Of course, you are by no means restricted to these options. And this is not exactly a vague and unlikely hypothesis; Slate is an eminently reputable and reliable source by our guidelines, and the piece covers an encyclopedic issue.
Johnleemk
Fred Bauder wrote:
The problem is that the link to the speculations about SlimVirgin, seem simply added as an afterthought. Kinda of like spitting in soup right before you serve it. The link really doesn't add anything to the discussion about Google. I think the information could be found in a source that is not spoiled in that way.
Are you talking about Johnleemk's link to the Slate piece, or the Slate piece's link to Brandt's WR piece?
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is that the link to the speculations about SlimVirgin, seem simply added as an afterthought. Kinda of like spitting in soup right before you serve it. The link really doesn't add anything to the discussion about Google. I think the information could be found in a source that is not spoiled in that way.
The purpose of the link in the article is to let the reader discover for himself how kooky Brandt is, and therefore how seriously to take his worries about Google's motives and behavior.
I respectfully suggest that the experience of spoil and spit is particular to your personal reactions to the mentions of Brandt and the SV-as-spy conspiracy theory, and not what a general reader would take from it. As flaws go, however, that's one I respect; that an arbitrator has a pro-Wikipedia bias is not entirely a bad thing.
William